Am Dienstag, 24. Mai 2016, 10:37:49 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:30:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:28:42AM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
Hi Tomeu,
Patch subject: please put the version into the brackets, so [PATCH v5] as it shouldn't be part of the commit log.
Am Dienstag, 24. Mai 2016, 09:27:37 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso:
As per the docs, atomic_commit should return -EBUSY "if an asycnhronous updated is requested and there is an earlier updated pending".
v2: Use the status of the workqueue instead of vop->event, and don't add a superfluous wait on the workqueue.
v3: Drop work_busy, as there's a sizeable delay when the worker finishes, which introduces a race in which the client has already received the last flip event but the next page flip ioctl will still return -EBUSY because work_busy returns outdated information.
v4: Hold dev->event_lock while checking the VOP's event field as suggested by Daniel Stone.
v5: Only block if there's outstanding work if it's a blocking call.
similarly, please put the changelog below the "---" and above the diffstat.>
drm culture is to keep it above, since it's kinda useful sometimes when later on trying to reconstruct wtf was discussed and why a patch was merged.
Maybe needs a bit more context: The only stuff you raised in your review is tiny style nits of pretty much utter irrelevance. No substantial and material feedback anywehere, and in my opinion in such a case either fix up the nits when applying (when you feel really strongly about perfect patches), or just merge as-is.
But sending out content-less bikesheds like these just adds noise and helps no-one. I think at least some spelling stuff is the minimal bar (but then just include your r-b tag), but personally I don't even care about that so much, as long as it's still legible.
ok, will keep that (both mails) in mind for future stuff.
Heiko